- Email: [email protected]
Shared-power Governance in Managing Common Pool Resources Case Study: Collaborative Planning to Manage Thematic Parks in Bandung City, Indonesia
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
CITIES 2015 International Conference, Intelligent Planning Towards Smart Cities, CITIES 2015, 3-4 November 2015, Surabaya, Indonesia
Shared-power governance in managing common pool resources case study: collaborative planning to manage thematic parks in Bandung City, Indonesia Zainab Nururrohmaha*, Suhirmana a
Policy Planning and Development Management, Research Group, City and Regional Planning Department, Bandung Institute of Technology, Ganeca Street, No.10, Bandung City 40132, Indonesia
Abstract Collaborative planning leads to the design of shared-power governance process, where communicative approach is the key to ensure all stakeholders have a voice. This idea is trying to make the implementation of public policy more participative, transparent, and brings valuable impact. This paper learns about how local government implements collaborative planning through managing public goods by involving variety of actors to the process. Thematic Park was chosen as a success case study of concept smart-livable-sustainable city of Bandung. In-depth interview has been done to the local government officials, donors, expertise, hired-conceiver, and local community in order to collect diverse perspective. The result shows that the collaboration scheme needs to be made as a policy system not just as sporadic and pragmatic concept, so the government able to account the transparency of all process. Furthermore, the good process needs longer time and more variety actor’s engagement. © Published by by Elsevier Ltd.Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2016 2016The TheAuthors. Authors. Published Elsevier (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CITIES 2015. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CITIES 2015 Keywords: collaborative planning; shared-power governance; public goods; Thematic Park, Bandung
1. Introduction The notion of collaborative planning has been a widely issue in the last two decades. This idea draw out inclusionary approach to the governance of collective concerns about co-existence in shared spaces, and forces
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +62 8561097481; fax: +0-000-000-0000 . E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-0428 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CITIES 2015 doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.102
466
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
pulling ideas and practices more rationalist and corporatist ways (Healey, 1997). It is overly-concerned with consensus building in policy-making and implementation by sharing power authorities of government to any other stakeholders. This process could build mutual dependencies of the actors, which leads to desirable outcomes and valuable impacts to the actors. In the conventional theory of the commons, participants do not undertake efforts to design their own governance arrangements (Ostrom, 2002). The absence of citizen participation in the policies and planning implementations made the planning process ineffective, because the impacts and implementation of outcomes not reach sustainable effects. For those reasons, some of governments these days have been tried to implement collaborative planning approach into their policies and projects. One of the best case studies is collaborative approach in managing Thematic Park in Bandung City. Thematic Park was one of the realization programs of elected Bandung City Mayor 2013-2018. It was a new innovation of providing public services by putting in physical attractive design approach to the parks. The emergence of Thematic Park aimed for raising happiness index and making people go outside their home to enjoy the public space, and generally it is successful. It is become the famous project which brings valuable impact to the citizen of Bandung City. The innovation that elected Bandung City Mayor brings to this program leaded him to two awards, The Adiupaya Pratama Award from the field of City’s and Citizen Housing’s Arrangement and Government Award from Sindo Weekly for category of Environment and Public Space Innovation. The Thematic Park was constructed and managed by public and private funds. This program involved diverse actors into account, from government officials, donors, expertise, local communities, initiators, and beneficiaries. The actors are engaging in collaborative works which made this program can be implemented. It is based on the statement of elected Bandung City Mayor, “Now is not a period to change era alone, we need together, we need to collaborate. Collaborate is like a key house called civil society” (Kamil, 2014). The new idea of this public space concept is fascinating the researcher to identify and analyze what are the aspects that makes this process could be success. This paper tries to conceptualize those aspects both in theoretical and practice framework into the collaborative scheme. This scheme hopefully can be used as a guidance recommendation to run the later or other similar projects. 2. Methods This research has been done by qualitative research method. The secondary data collected by content analysis technique, which the sources came from government official websites and publications, social medias of Bandung City Mayor, news portals, government documents, and annual report of Bandung City Mayor. Furthermore, over observation is also done to the already 14 finished-construction of Bandung City Thematic Parks, where the researcher was admitted honestly to the informant that they were doing research process (Faisal (1990) in Fuad and Nugroho (2013)). The observation aimed to get direct information of research locations and catch the phenomenon of real situation to support the information. The primary data was collected by in-depth interview to the diverse actors. The actors are local government officials, donors, expertise from multi-discipline majors, hired-conceiver, and local community. The actors are the people who involved in planning, building, and managing the Thematic Parks of Bandung City. Those actors than conceptualize into stakeholder analysis matrix to map out the level of influence and important of each actors. The information then analyzed and compared among the regulations and theoretical frameworks to get exact point of view. The result then elaborated into collaboration scheme, a recommended scheme to organize the actors and actions into the guidelines. 3. Result and Discussions 3.1. The Thematic Parks Concept According to Development and Management Concept Study of City Parks as Being Thematic Parks of Bandung City, Thematic Park is the park created with certain theme/concept as a particular characteristic, by brings out certain characters, so that when people see it they can be able to capture the impression of a more specific function of the
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
467
parks. The basic determinations of Thematic Parks consist of function, location, and potential. Based on the function, development of Thematic Parks should accommodate the needs of communities’ activities. Its location should be strategic and easily accessible by the community, and also have characteristic of Bandung City’s landmark. From the potential area perspective, its implementation should introduce and develop surrounding area’s potential. The development of Thematic Parks initiated by Bandung City Mayor, it is one of his promise-programs in Bandung Juara (Bandung Champion) before he was elected. Thematic Parks is one of priority program in public infrastructure management’s sector, by utilizing empty space creatively to turn into Thematic City Parks. The innovation of added physical attractiveness in Thematic Parks invites citizen to come and enjoy activities in public space. Before this, almost all city parks in Bandung did not have any differentiate one each other, they have the same characteristics in all aspects. However, the later theme and aesthetic design that put into it makes the city parks are interesting to be visited. Parks are not only have the function to preserve environmental area but also meaningful as social place which accommodate people to interact and make activities. 3.2. Private Funding Mechanism The approximate budget of 17 planned Thematic Parks is Rp. 132,550,000,000 (± $ 9,034,000), which is almost impossible to fulfill all by Local Budget, so it is need the assistance of private funds such as CSR or Corporate Social (and Environment) Responsibility and/or grant. However, the CSR fund should be given from private enterprises to the citizen or communities directly. The government’s role in CSR mechanism is as a third party who is coordinate and records the donation in the government report. The CSR mechanism can be done if private enterprise donates a whole Thematic Park directly to the local community. This far, there has been no donation came from CSR, but it is possible for upcoming ones. The CSR is an obligation for all enterprises (Regional Regulation of Bandung City No 13/2012). It’s mechanism in Bandung is ruled by Regional Regulation No.9/2005 about Reception of Third Parties’ Donation to Bandung City Government, it is formulated into the diagram below: Private Enterprises
Request Letter, Technical Design & Budget Estimation
CS(E)R Forum Bandung City Mayor
Accepted
Executions (Regional Regulation No.9/2005)
Not accepted
Suggestion
Meeting
Related Government Official
Fig. 1. Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility Mechanism to Bandung City Government Source: Analysis Result from Interview with Regional Secretary-Economic Planning Division of Bandung City, 2015
All private funding of finished Thematic Parks came from grants, in form of goods, constructions, and designs. The grants offered by private enterprises, consultant firms, NGOs, community, and expertise. Previously, the government official was collected the grant funds passively, by waiting the candidate donors to bring help. However, Bandung City Mayor made the innovation to collect the grants actively by offering the projects or donor items and approaching directly to the private enterprise in Bandung City. The offered given by distributing CSR Books and presenting government programs to the private enterprise alternately. The diagram below shows the mechanism of grants:
468
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
Transfer-Receive Report Grant Donors
Approved
Grant Submission Letter
Checking
Bandung City Mayor Money
Agreement Letter of Grant Donors: - Donors’ Identities - Rights and Duties of Donors Good
Bank Account of Bandung City Government
Regional Secretary of Bandung City
Letter of Field Transfer
Execution
Finish construction
Fig. 2. Grants Funding Mechanism to Bandung City Government Source: Analysis Result from Interview with Regional Secretary-Economic Planning Division and Head of Parks' Arrangement and Construction Sub-Division of Bandung City, 2015
Before the concept of Thematic Park was existed, almost all of the previous Bandung City Parks was funded by APBD. Nevertheless, the innovation methods in collecting grants to fund Thematic Parks bring significant improvement of donors’ participation. The active government approaches, the uniqueness of Thematic Park’s idea, and the transparency of the process has been influenced the candidate donors to bring helps. The advantages of using private funds are to cover the deficit cost from APBD and to accelerate the development process because the private funding can banish the bureaucracy. The number of planned Thematic Parks from 20142015 are 6 parks. However, it has already built 14 Thematic Parks, faster than its plan. The funding sources of each Thematic Parks shown in the table below: Table 1. Funding of Thematic Parks in Bandung City No
Thematic Park
Theme
Funds (Construction)*
1
Anak Tongkeng Park
Chidren
2
Film Park
Film
Grant (Unilever) Grant (PT. Nata Sarana Internusa, CV. Sumber Sarana Promo, SHAU Consultant) APBD
3
Fitness Park
Fitness
4
Fotografi Park
Photography
APBD
5
Gesit Park
Movement
PT. Nutrifood Indonesia (NFI)
6
Jomblo Park
Single people
APBD
7
Kandanga Puspa Park
Flower - Botanic
Grant (Badan Promosi Pariwisata Kota Bandung)
8
Lansia Park
Elderly people
APBD
9
Musik Park
Music
10
Persib Park
Soccer
11
Pet Park
Pets
APBD APBD & Grant (Multistrada Arah Sarana, Yayasan Oke Peduli Bangsa, Hotel Talagasari) APBD
12
Skateboard Park
Skateboard
APBD
13
SuperHero Park
Super Hero
APBD
14
Vanda Park
Money - Bank
Grant (BMPD, PT. Wilmar Nabati Indonesia, Summarecon)
Source: Interview with Head of Parks' Arrangement and Construction Sub-Division of Bandung City, 2015
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
469
3.3. Power Influences Power is simply the capacity to bring about change, it is the energy that gets things done (Social Science Team of USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2005). Power plays a significant role in the workings of leadership (Ricketts, 2009). Many types of power have been identified by the researchers, however this paper focuses on network power and community power which are considered as the most influence to the process of Thematic Parks’ development. 3.3.1. Network Power In some occasions, Bandung City Major stated that the Bandung Juara programs cannot be done without collaboration spirit of each sectors. The opportunities, he continued, should be pursued not be waiting. His experience and knowledge influence his perspective about collaborative approach which has been started even before he was elected. He has been known in entrepreneurs, architects, activists, and academics circles as his previous background. Furthermore, the ‘good figure’ of him influences people to bring helps. As the key actor of collaborative action, Bandung City Major takes the advantage from his previous network power to be involved in implementing Thematic Parks. As Booher and Innes (2002) stated in Network Power in Collaborative Planning, collaborative planning is becoming more important because it can result in network power. Network power, they continue, is a shared ability of linked agents to alter their environment in ways advantageous to these agents individually and collectively. Network power in their ideas comes into being most effectively when diversity, interdependencies, and authentic dialogue (DIAD) emerge in the relationship of agents in a collaborative network. The novel of Network Power is formed by the emergent of Informational Age. We have entered an “informational society” where information generation, processing, and transmission are the fundamental sources of power and productivity (Castells, 1996 in Booher and Innes, 2002). The site of this power are people’s minds, whoever wins the battle of people’s mind will rule. The emergence of informational age also related to the social media era, where people are connected in virtual ways whether they recognize each other or not. The Bandung City Major is an active user of the social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and ask.fm. He took the advantages of his social media to gain citizen participation and suggestion, such as the selection theme for upcoming Thematic Parks. Besides his personal social media, the citizen of Bandung City can also report some complaint of public facilitation by mentioning related government official (SKPD) account to get feedback and evaluation. The uses of these social media made the process of governance more transparent and accountable, and also build mutual-benefit interaction both of the government and citizen. 3.3.1. Community Power Osborne and Plastrik (1997) adopt the idea from business professors Michael Beer, Russell Eisenstat, and Bert Spector made the same point in a 1990 Harvard Business Review article titled “Why Change Programs Don’t Produce Change”: Most change programs don’t work because they are guided by a theory of change that is fundamentally flawed. According to this model, change is like a conversation experience. Once people “get religion” changes in their behavior will surely follow… In fact, individual behavior is powerfully shaped by the organizational roles people play. The most effective way to change behavior therefore is to put people into a new organizational context, which imposes new roles, responsibilities, and relationships on them.
Furthermore, Osborne and Plastrik (1997) suggested the Five C’s strategies for Reinventing Government. They described reinvention as the fundamental transformation of public systems and organizations to create dramatic increases in their effectiveness, efficiency, adaptability, and capacity to innovate. This transformation is accomplished by changing their purpose, incentives, accountability, power structure, and culture. The power lever conceptualized as the 4th strategy that is control strategy. One of the control strategies is by shifting control for
470
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
public organizations to the community, empowering them to solve their own problems and run their own institutions. Mostly, people who assist policy-making process typically do not recognize the power they do have or the ways they can play significant parts in producing valued outcomes for society (Innes and Booher, 2010). Ricketts (2009) stated that identification of local power stakeholders is particularly important to make the decisions that affect the local communities and to undertake their action initiatives. The community power, she defined as power to affect the distribution of both public and private resources within the community. In the process of managing Thematic Parks, societies have significant roles besides as beneficiaries, which are to keep and activate the function of these parks. Their awareness appeared by their own, they have sense of belonging to keep and to take advantage of these attractive public services. It is probably because Thematic Parks can accommodate either their passions or indulgences. Those societies take action in the form of certain community or non-formal association (paguyuban).
3.4. Stakeholders Mapping Stakeholder analysis is a process of systematically gathering and analyzing qualitative information to determine whose interests should be taken into account when developing and/or implementing a policy or program (Schmeer, 1999). The stakeholders referred to actors (persons or organizations) who have a vested interest in the policy that is being promoted are considered stakeholders in the process. This tool arranged in order to allow policy makers to interact more effectively with key stakeholders and to increase support for a given policy or program, so they are more likely to succeed. The stakeholder analysis method in this paper used to analyze what must do in optimizing the stakeholders’ roles in the process in order to make valuable impact of outcomes. The actors were identified by their influences (power) and interests so it can be known their critical involvement and what the best role they should take in to account. The selected stakeholders were collected from secondary data information and the later information from snow-ball method. Degree of influences and interests of actors are identified by involving the questions related to those in the in-depth interview manual. This in-depth interview has been done to the thirteen actors. The results conceptualized into the matrix that formulated by Schmeer (1999) with little simplification. Furthermore, the additional indexes in final level of importance and influence of stakeholders adapted from The World Bank (1998) are added to the matrix. The results shown in the matrix below: Table 2. Stakeholder Analysis Matrix Importance of Stakeholder for Success of Project No
Actors' Name
Position & Organization
Interests
Internal/ External
Interests Knowled Posi ge tion
1
Drs. Dadang Iradi, M.Pd. (Government official 1)
Regional Secretary of Funeral & Parks Department
2
Ir. Dadang Darmawan, M.Si.
Head of Parks Division
Degree of Influence of Stakeholder over Project Resources
Power
Leader
Ability Resour Advant./ Quantit to ces Yes/No Disadvan y Mobiliz Averag t. e e
Level of Importance and Influence
Represen t Head of FPD, leading secretaria t aspects of FPD
Internal
2
Sup Advantage port s
2
3
2
Yes
Importance: 3 Influence: 3
Leading sector of parks in
Internal
3
Sup port
2
3
2
Yes
Importance: 5 Influence: 4
Advantag es
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
471
(Government official 2)
Bandung City
3
Rikke Siti Fatimah, S.P. (Government official 3)
Coordina ting & recording data of parks’ arrangem ent & constructi on
Internal
3
Sup port
Advantag es
2
2
2
Yes
Importance: 4 Influence: 3
4
Coordina ting General Function R. M. Taufiq mechanis - Regional Hidayat, S.Sos., m of Secretary of M.T. private Bandung City, (Government fund Economic official 4) rising Planning Div. (CSR and grants)
Internal
2
Sup port
Advantag es
2
2
2
No
Importance: 4 Influence: 3
5
Lecturer of Landscape Architecture in ITB and Architect
Coordina ting Governm entAcademi c projects cooperati on in an upcomin gplanned of Thematic Park
External
2
Modera Advantag te es Support
1
1
1
No
Importance: 3 Influence: 2
Lecturer of Landscape Architecture in ITB and Architect
Contribut ing on grant of upcomin g Bandung City Park's design
External
2
Modera Advantag te es Support
1
1
1
No
Importance: 3 Influence: 2
7
Dian Heri Sofian, IAI, IALI. (Expertise, Grant Donor of Design 1)
Lecturer, Chief of IALI (Association of Indonesia Landscape Architecture)
Contribut ing on grant of upcomin g Bandung City Park's design
External
2
Modera Advantag te es Support
2
3
2
Yes
Importance: 4 Influence: 3
8
Sigit Wisnuadji, ST., M.Sc. (Expertise,
Architect
Contribut ing on grant of Vanda
External
2
2
2
2
No
Importance: 4 Influence: 3
6
Ir. Budi Faisal, MLA, MAUD, Ph.D. (Expertise 1)
Agus R. Soeriaatmadja , ST., MLA. (Expertise 2)
Head of Parks' Arrangement and Construction Sub-Division
Sup port
Advantag es
472
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
Grant Donor of Design 2)
Park's design
9
Daliana Suryawinata (Expertise, Grant Donor of Design 3)
Co-founder and Director of SHAU Architecture and Urbanism Consultant
Contribut ing on grant of Film Park's design
External
2
Sup port
Advantag es
2
2
2
No
Importance: 4 Influence: 3
10
Ir. Atmaji Widiyuswant o (Grant Donor of Goods and Construction)
QS. CA & Purchasing Manager PT. Mahkota Permata Perdana
Contribut ing on funding grant of Vanda Park
External
1
Sup port
Advantag es
2
2
2
No
Importance: 4 Influence: 3
11
Novi Cahyono, S.E. (Grant Donor of Goods)
Secretariat of BMPD (Group of Regional Banking Deliberation) West Java
Contribut ing on funding grant of Vanda Park
External
1
Modera Advantag te es Support
2
2
2
No
Importance: 3 Influence: 3
General Secretary of Bandung Creative City Forum (BCCF)
Hired by Bandung City Governm ent to design the Music Park
External
2
Advantag es
2
2
2
No
Importance: 3 Influence: 2
Lecturer of Landscape Architecture in UNPAS, and Landscape Architect
Hired by Bandung City Governm ent to conceptu alize the Thematic Park's justificati on study
External
2
Modera Advantag te es Support
1
1
1
No
Importance: 3 Influence: 2
12
13
Dr. Dwinita Larasati, MA. (Hired Design Consultant)
Ir. Achmad Firmansam, MIL. (Hired Conceiver)
Sup port
Source: Analysis Result
Explanations: The World Bank (1998) - Interests: the priority concerns of the stakeholder group (or what is “at stake” for them); -Importance: the degree to which the achievement of project objectives depends on the active involvement of a given stakeholder group (U=Unknown; 1=Little/No Importance; 2=Some Importance; 3=Moderate Importance; 4=Very Importance; 5=Critical Player) - Influence: the degree to which the stakeholder group has power and control over the project and can thus facilitate or hinder its implementation (U=Unknown; 1=Little/No Influence; 2=Some Influence; 3=Moderate Influence; 4=Significant Influence; 5=Very Influential) Schmeer (1999) - Internal stakeholders work within the organization that is promoting or implementing the policy; all other stakeholders are considered external
473
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
Level of knowledge regarding the policy under analysis; 3 = a lot; 2 = some; 1 = none Position: Support; those who agree with the implementation of the policy, Moderate Supporters; express some agreement, Opponent; disagree, Moderate-Opponents; express some opposition, Neutral; do not have a clear opinion or their opinion could not be discerned - Resources: “a source of support or aid” (Webster, 1984). Resources can be of many types—human, financial, technological, political, and other. The quantity of resources: 3=many; 2=some; 1=few - The ability of the stakeholder to mobilize resources: 3=can make decisions regarding the use of the resources in his/her organization/area; 2=stakeholder is one of several persons that makes decisions; 1=cannot make decisions - Power is the ability to affect the policy implementation due to the strength or force he/she possesses. Resources average of power is combined measure of quantity and ability to mobilize, resulting index; 3=high; 2=medium; 1=little - Leadership is willingness and ability to initiate, convoke, or lead an action for or against the policy. The stakeholder either has or lacks this characteristic, represented with “yes” or “no" Furthermore, the matrix of stakeholder analysis was transfer into the Mapping Key Stakeholders. Level of the importance and influence of stakeholders in the last previous column, are divided into their classification. The mapping can help to analyze the results more systematic. The mapping matrix can be seen in the table below: -
Table 3. Mapping Key Stakeholders’ Relative Influence and Importance Degree of Influence of Stakeholder over Project Unknown Little/No Influence
Importance of Stakeholder for Success of Project Unknown
Little/No Importance
Some Importance
Moderate Importance
Much Importance
Critical Player
1. Expertise 1 2. Expertise 2 Some Influence
3. Hired Design Consultant 4. Hired Conceiver 1. Government Official 3 2. Government Official 4 3. Expertise and Grant Donor of Design 1 1. Government Official 1
Moderate Influence
2. Grant Donor of Goods
4. Expertise and Grant Donor of Design 2 5. Expertise and Grant Donor of Design 3 6. Grant Donor of Goods & Construction
Significant Influence Very Influential
1. Government Official 2 1. Bandung City Mayor
The World Bank (1998) defined the results of mapping key stakeholders into four types based on the degree (low and high) of the influence and the importance of stakeholders. Related to the result of table 3, it can be divided into stakeholders of high influence and high importance and stakeholder of low influence and high importance. The stakeholders of high influence and high importance (in the gray one) should be closely involved throughout to
474
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
ensure their support for the project, whereas stakeholders of low influence and high importance require special efforts to ensure that their needs are met and their participation is meaningful. In general, the result shows that the stakeholders involved have high importance and high influence in the project. The non-government actors especially, need to be assisted and accommodated well to keep their participation and active roles. Each of stakeholders needs to understand their critical roles, their rights and obligations, and their opinions for better process or outcomes should be followed up. The building trust and shared-vision for the better public service should be pursued together, whether each stakeholder’s objectives could be different. In this context, the Bandung City Mayor as the key actor needs to ensure those aspects to other stakeholders, in order to keep the desirable-values going. 3.5. Collaboration Scheme The previous examinations of this study try to derive theoretical and empirical framework on collaborative approach in the Thematic Park case. The results then analyzed, compared, and combined with the previous researches. The authors influenced by Collaborative Governance Model from Ansell and Gash (2007), Network Power Model from Booher and Innes (2002), and Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) from Thomas and Kilmann (1974). Those models have built the collaborative management strategy as a tool to make valuable outcomes of projects or policies after reviewing hundreds different cases. Nevertheless, those models are not elaborated in practical approach about how exactly collaborative approach involved in the projects systems. Our goal is to build the collaborative scheme of government projects in providing public goods, so this system can be adopted and evaluated. The involvement of diverse stakeholders in collaborative action of government projects and how those are managed and organized by government officials can be seen in the diagram below:
Fig. 3. Collaboration Scheme of Government Projects in Providing Public Goods Source: Analysis Result
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
475
This collaborative scheme need to be made as a policy system in order to ensure the system can be ‘implemented’ and runs more sustainable. In Indonesia, this policy system can be built in the context of Peraturan Daerah or Regional Regulation. However, the government should be careful with certain political motive from some actors. The success of this scheme much influenced by the diversity of stakeholders, duration of the process, and degree of participation. The better results need longer time and more variety actor’s engagement. The uncertainty inherent in this complex system moreover, meant that even powerful actors and knowledgeable experts could not make predictions on which effective policy could be based (Innes and Booher, 2010). Ernest Alexander (2003) in Allmendinger (2002) also rejected the possibility of a ‘general theory’ of planning, the different kinds of planners in different context should (and do) enact different models or theories of planning. The model of collaborative scheme might be appropriate in some context of government projects, but might be inappropriate in other contexts, it is considered by the similar complexity of the projects. 4. Conclusions Governance process are not recipes, they are unique constructions in specific situations (Healey, 1997). Systems are dynamic, they are adapt, shift, and evolve (Allmendinger, 2002). Those systems can be theorized, modelled, and predicted, as long as the combination of its constraints and rational behavior taken into account, and the planning should anticipate its dynamic changing. This paper intended to make the best practice of collaborative approach in Bandung City Thematic Parks taken into the policy system of collaboration scheme, so this action could be continued and more sustainable. Nevertheless, it is a casuistic phenomenon which this research only focused on. The further comprehensive study, more evaluation and comparison to others practice are needed in order to make the better model. Acknowledgements This paper is part of an on-going thesis project entitled “Analisis Tipologi Bentuk Kolaborasi Stakeholders yang Terlibat dalam Pengadaan dan Pengelolaan Taman Tematik Kota Bandung”. The authors would like to thank especially for the respondents who are willing to be interviewed and really cooperative to bring the information, so this research possible to have done.
References Allmendinger, P. (2002). Planning Theory. Hampshire: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (JPART), 543-571. Bandung, BAPPEDA Kota, & Interplan, PT. Belaputra. (2014). Laporan Akhir Kajian Konsep Pengembangan dan Pengelolaan Taman Kota Menjadi Taman Tematik di Kota Bandung. Bandung: BAPPEDA Kota Bandung. Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2002). Network Power in Collaborative Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 221-236. ______________________. (2010). Planning With Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. New York: Routledge. Fuad, A., & Nugroho, K. S. (2014). Panduan Praktis Penelitian Kualitatif. Yogyakarta: GRAHA ILMU. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning:Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN. _______. (2003). Collaborative Planning in Perspective. SAGE Publications, 2 (2), 101-123. Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (1997). Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing The Commons. Cambridge: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. ________. (1998). Common-Pool Resources and Institutions: Toward a Revised Theory. In P. Newman (Ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and The Law (Vol. 3, pp. 1316-1336). London: Macmillan Press. Peraturan Daerah Kota Bandung Nomor 9 Tahun 2005. Penerimaan Sumbangan Pihak Ketiga Kepada Pemerintah Kota Bandung. 21 Oktober 2005. Lembaran Daerah Kota Bandung Tahun 2005 Nomor 09. Bandung. Peraturan Daerah Kota Bandung Nomor 13 Tahun 2012. Pelaksanaan Kewajiban Tanggung Jawab Sosial dan Lingkungan Perusahaan. 23 Juli 2012. Lembaran Daerah Kota Bandung Tahun 2012 Nomor 13. Bandung. Ricketts, K. G. (2009, August). Power Basics. Retrieved March 28, 2015, from UK Ag: Learning, Discovery, Service: http://www2.ca.uky.edu/ agc/pubs/elk2/elk2103/elk2103.pdf Schmeer, K. (1999, November). Guidelines for Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis. Health Reform Tools Series.
476
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476 Social Science Team of USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2005, May). Understanding Community Power Structure. People, Partnership, and Communities(21), pp. 1-8. The World Bank. (1998, April). Participation and Social Assessment: Tools and Techniques. Washington D.C., United States of America: The World Bank. Thomas, K. W. (2012). Making Conflict Management a Strategic Advantage. White Paper.
ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
CITIES 2015 International Conference, Intelligent Planning Towards Smart Cities, CITIES 2015, 3-4 November 2015, Surabaya, Indonesia
Shared-power governance in managing common pool resources case study: collaborative planning to manage thematic parks in Bandung City, Indonesia Zainab Nururrohmaha*, Suhirmana a
Policy Planning and Development Management, Research Group, City and Regional Planning Department, Bandung Institute of Technology, Ganeca Street, No.10, Bandung City 40132, Indonesia
Abstract Collaborative planning leads to the design of shared-power governance process, where communicative approach is the key to ensure all stakeholders have a voice. This idea is trying to make the implementation of public policy more participative, transparent, and brings valuable impact. This paper learns about how local government implements collaborative planning through managing public goods by involving variety of actors to the process. Thematic Park was chosen as a success case study of concept smart-livable-sustainable city of Bandung. In-depth interview has been done to the local government officials, donors, expertise, hired-conceiver, and local community in order to collect diverse perspective. The result shows that the collaboration scheme needs to be made as a policy system not just as sporadic and pragmatic concept, so the government able to account the transparency of all process. Furthermore, the good process needs longer time and more variety actor’s engagement. © Published by by Elsevier Ltd.Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2016 2016The TheAuthors. Authors. Published Elsevier (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CITIES 2015. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CITIES 2015 Keywords: collaborative planning; shared-power governance; public goods; Thematic Park, Bandung
1. Introduction The notion of collaborative planning has been a widely issue in the last two decades. This idea draw out inclusionary approach to the governance of collective concerns about co-existence in shared spaces, and forces
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +62 8561097481; fax: +0-000-000-0000 . E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-0428 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CITIES 2015 doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.102
466
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
pulling ideas and practices more rationalist and corporatist ways (Healey, 1997). It is overly-concerned with consensus building in policy-making and implementation by sharing power authorities of government to any other stakeholders. This process could build mutual dependencies of the actors, which leads to desirable outcomes and valuable impacts to the actors. In the conventional theory of the commons, participants do not undertake efforts to design their own governance arrangements (Ostrom, 2002). The absence of citizen participation in the policies and planning implementations made the planning process ineffective, because the impacts and implementation of outcomes not reach sustainable effects. For those reasons, some of governments these days have been tried to implement collaborative planning approach into their policies and projects. One of the best case studies is collaborative approach in managing Thematic Park in Bandung City. Thematic Park was one of the realization programs of elected Bandung City Mayor 2013-2018. It was a new innovation of providing public services by putting in physical attractive design approach to the parks. The emergence of Thematic Park aimed for raising happiness index and making people go outside their home to enjoy the public space, and generally it is successful. It is become the famous project which brings valuable impact to the citizen of Bandung City. The innovation that elected Bandung City Mayor brings to this program leaded him to two awards, The Adiupaya Pratama Award from the field of City’s and Citizen Housing’s Arrangement and Government Award from Sindo Weekly for category of Environment and Public Space Innovation. The Thematic Park was constructed and managed by public and private funds. This program involved diverse actors into account, from government officials, donors, expertise, local communities, initiators, and beneficiaries. The actors are engaging in collaborative works which made this program can be implemented. It is based on the statement of elected Bandung City Mayor, “Now is not a period to change era alone, we need together, we need to collaborate. Collaborate is like a key house called civil society” (Kamil, 2014). The new idea of this public space concept is fascinating the researcher to identify and analyze what are the aspects that makes this process could be success. This paper tries to conceptualize those aspects both in theoretical and practice framework into the collaborative scheme. This scheme hopefully can be used as a guidance recommendation to run the later or other similar projects. 2. Methods This research has been done by qualitative research method. The secondary data collected by content analysis technique, which the sources came from government official websites and publications, social medias of Bandung City Mayor, news portals, government documents, and annual report of Bandung City Mayor. Furthermore, over observation is also done to the already 14 finished-construction of Bandung City Thematic Parks, where the researcher was admitted honestly to the informant that they were doing research process (Faisal (1990) in Fuad and Nugroho (2013)). The observation aimed to get direct information of research locations and catch the phenomenon of real situation to support the information. The primary data was collected by in-depth interview to the diverse actors. The actors are local government officials, donors, expertise from multi-discipline majors, hired-conceiver, and local community. The actors are the people who involved in planning, building, and managing the Thematic Parks of Bandung City. Those actors than conceptualize into stakeholder analysis matrix to map out the level of influence and important of each actors. The information then analyzed and compared among the regulations and theoretical frameworks to get exact point of view. The result then elaborated into collaboration scheme, a recommended scheme to organize the actors and actions into the guidelines. 3. Result and Discussions 3.1. The Thematic Parks Concept According to Development and Management Concept Study of City Parks as Being Thematic Parks of Bandung City, Thematic Park is the park created with certain theme/concept as a particular characteristic, by brings out certain characters, so that when people see it they can be able to capture the impression of a more specific function of the
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
467
parks. The basic determinations of Thematic Parks consist of function, location, and potential. Based on the function, development of Thematic Parks should accommodate the needs of communities’ activities. Its location should be strategic and easily accessible by the community, and also have characteristic of Bandung City’s landmark. From the potential area perspective, its implementation should introduce and develop surrounding area’s potential. The development of Thematic Parks initiated by Bandung City Mayor, it is one of his promise-programs in Bandung Juara (Bandung Champion) before he was elected. Thematic Parks is one of priority program in public infrastructure management’s sector, by utilizing empty space creatively to turn into Thematic City Parks. The innovation of added physical attractiveness in Thematic Parks invites citizen to come and enjoy activities in public space. Before this, almost all city parks in Bandung did not have any differentiate one each other, they have the same characteristics in all aspects. However, the later theme and aesthetic design that put into it makes the city parks are interesting to be visited. Parks are not only have the function to preserve environmental area but also meaningful as social place which accommodate people to interact and make activities. 3.2. Private Funding Mechanism The approximate budget of 17 planned Thematic Parks is Rp. 132,550,000,000 (± $ 9,034,000), which is almost impossible to fulfill all by Local Budget, so it is need the assistance of private funds such as CSR or Corporate Social (and Environment) Responsibility and/or grant. However, the CSR fund should be given from private enterprises to the citizen or communities directly. The government’s role in CSR mechanism is as a third party who is coordinate and records the donation in the government report. The CSR mechanism can be done if private enterprise donates a whole Thematic Park directly to the local community. This far, there has been no donation came from CSR, but it is possible for upcoming ones. The CSR is an obligation for all enterprises (Regional Regulation of Bandung City No 13/2012). It’s mechanism in Bandung is ruled by Regional Regulation No.9/2005 about Reception of Third Parties’ Donation to Bandung City Government, it is formulated into the diagram below: Private Enterprises
Request Letter, Technical Design & Budget Estimation
CS(E)R Forum Bandung City Mayor
Accepted
Executions (Regional Regulation No.9/2005)
Not accepted
Suggestion
Meeting
Related Government Official
Fig. 1. Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility Mechanism to Bandung City Government Source: Analysis Result from Interview with Regional Secretary-Economic Planning Division of Bandung City, 2015
All private funding of finished Thematic Parks came from grants, in form of goods, constructions, and designs. The grants offered by private enterprises, consultant firms, NGOs, community, and expertise. Previously, the government official was collected the grant funds passively, by waiting the candidate donors to bring help. However, Bandung City Mayor made the innovation to collect the grants actively by offering the projects or donor items and approaching directly to the private enterprise in Bandung City. The offered given by distributing CSR Books and presenting government programs to the private enterprise alternately. The diagram below shows the mechanism of grants:
468
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
Transfer-Receive Report Grant Donors
Approved
Grant Submission Letter
Checking
Bandung City Mayor Money
Agreement Letter of Grant Donors: - Donors’ Identities - Rights and Duties of Donors Good
Bank Account of Bandung City Government
Regional Secretary of Bandung City
Letter of Field Transfer
Execution
Finish construction
Fig. 2. Grants Funding Mechanism to Bandung City Government Source: Analysis Result from Interview with Regional Secretary-Economic Planning Division and Head of Parks' Arrangement and Construction Sub-Division of Bandung City, 2015
Before the concept of Thematic Park was existed, almost all of the previous Bandung City Parks was funded by APBD. Nevertheless, the innovation methods in collecting grants to fund Thematic Parks bring significant improvement of donors’ participation. The active government approaches, the uniqueness of Thematic Park’s idea, and the transparency of the process has been influenced the candidate donors to bring helps. The advantages of using private funds are to cover the deficit cost from APBD and to accelerate the development process because the private funding can banish the bureaucracy. The number of planned Thematic Parks from 20142015 are 6 parks. However, it has already built 14 Thematic Parks, faster than its plan. The funding sources of each Thematic Parks shown in the table below: Table 1. Funding of Thematic Parks in Bandung City No
Thematic Park
Theme
Funds (Construction)*
1
Anak Tongkeng Park
Chidren
2
Film Park
Film
Grant (Unilever) Grant (PT. Nata Sarana Internusa, CV. Sumber Sarana Promo, SHAU Consultant) APBD
3
Fitness Park
Fitness
4
Fotografi Park
Photography
APBD
5
Gesit Park
Movement
PT. Nutrifood Indonesia (NFI)
6
Jomblo Park
Single people
APBD
7
Kandanga Puspa Park
Flower - Botanic
Grant (Badan Promosi Pariwisata Kota Bandung)
8
Lansia Park
Elderly people
APBD
9
Musik Park
Music
10
Persib Park
Soccer
11
Pet Park
Pets
APBD APBD & Grant (Multistrada Arah Sarana, Yayasan Oke Peduli Bangsa, Hotel Talagasari) APBD
12
Skateboard Park
Skateboard
APBD
13
SuperHero Park
Super Hero
APBD
14
Vanda Park
Money - Bank
Grant (BMPD, PT. Wilmar Nabati Indonesia, Summarecon)
Source: Interview with Head of Parks' Arrangement and Construction Sub-Division of Bandung City, 2015
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
469
3.3. Power Influences Power is simply the capacity to bring about change, it is the energy that gets things done (Social Science Team of USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2005). Power plays a significant role in the workings of leadership (Ricketts, 2009). Many types of power have been identified by the researchers, however this paper focuses on network power and community power which are considered as the most influence to the process of Thematic Parks’ development. 3.3.1. Network Power In some occasions, Bandung City Major stated that the Bandung Juara programs cannot be done without collaboration spirit of each sectors. The opportunities, he continued, should be pursued not be waiting. His experience and knowledge influence his perspective about collaborative approach which has been started even before he was elected. He has been known in entrepreneurs, architects, activists, and academics circles as his previous background. Furthermore, the ‘good figure’ of him influences people to bring helps. As the key actor of collaborative action, Bandung City Major takes the advantage from his previous network power to be involved in implementing Thematic Parks. As Booher and Innes (2002) stated in Network Power in Collaborative Planning, collaborative planning is becoming more important because it can result in network power. Network power, they continue, is a shared ability of linked agents to alter their environment in ways advantageous to these agents individually and collectively. Network power in their ideas comes into being most effectively when diversity, interdependencies, and authentic dialogue (DIAD) emerge in the relationship of agents in a collaborative network. The novel of Network Power is formed by the emergent of Informational Age. We have entered an “informational society” where information generation, processing, and transmission are the fundamental sources of power and productivity (Castells, 1996 in Booher and Innes, 2002). The site of this power are people’s minds, whoever wins the battle of people’s mind will rule. The emergence of informational age also related to the social media era, where people are connected in virtual ways whether they recognize each other or not. The Bandung City Major is an active user of the social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and ask.fm. He took the advantages of his social media to gain citizen participation and suggestion, such as the selection theme for upcoming Thematic Parks. Besides his personal social media, the citizen of Bandung City can also report some complaint of public facilitation by mentioning related government official (SKPD) account to get feedback and evaluation. The uses of these social media made the process of governance more transparent and accountable, and also build mutual-benefit interaction both of the government and citizen. 3.3.1. Community Power Osborne and Plastrik (1997) adopt the idea from business professors Michael Beer, Russell Eisenstat, and Bert Spector made the same point in a 1990 Harvard Business Review article titled “Why Change Programs Don’t Produce Change”: Most change programs don’t work because they are guided by a theory of change that is fundamentally flawed. According to this model, change is like a conversation experience. Once people “get religion” changes in their behavior will surely follow… In fact, individual behavior is powerfully shaped by the organizational roles people play. The most effective way to change behavior therefore is to put people into a new organizational context, which imposes new roles, responsibilities, and relationships on them.
Furthermore, Osborne and Plastrik (1997) suggested the Five C’s strategies for Reinventing Government. They described reinvention as the fundamental transformation of public systems and organizations to create dramatic increases in their effectiveness, efficiency, adaptability, and capacity to innovate. This transformation is accomplished by changing their purpose, incentives, accountability, power structure, and culture. The power lever conceptualized as the 4th strategy that is control strategy. One of the control strategies is by shifting control for
470
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
public organizations to the community, empowering them to solve their own problems and run their own institutions. Mostly, people who assist policy-making process typically do not recognize the power they do have or the ways they can play significant parts in producing valued outcomes for society (Innes and Booher, 2010). Ricketts (2009) stated that identification of local power stakeholders is particularly important to make the decisions that affect the local communities and to undertake their action initiatives. The community power, she defined as power to affect the distribution of both public and private resources within the community. In the process of managing Thematic Parks, societies have significant roles besides as beneficiaries, which are to keep and activate the function of these parks. Their awareness appeared by their own, they have sense of belonging to keep and to take advantage of these attractive public services. It is probably because Thematic Parks can accommodate either their passions or indulgences. Those societies take action in the form of certain community or non-formal association (paguyuban).
3.4. Stakeholders Mapping Stakeholder analysis is a process of systematically gathering and analyzing qualitative information to determine whose interests should be taken into account when developing and/or implementing a policy or program (Schmeer, 1999). The stakeholders referred to actors (persons or organizations) who have a vested interest in the policy that is being promoted are considered stakeholders in the process. This tool arranged in order to allow policy makers to interact more effectively with key stakeholders and to increase support for a given policy or program, so they are more likely to succeed. The stakeholder analysis method in this paper used to analyze what must do in optimizing the stakeholders’ roles in the process in order to make valuable impact of outcomes. The actors were identified by their influences (power) and interests so it can be known their critical involvement and what the best role they should take in to account. The selected stakeholders were collected from secondary data information and the later information from snow-ball method. Degree of influences and interests of actors are identified by involving the questions related to those in the in-depth interview manual. This in-depth interview has been done to the thirteen actors. The results conceptualized into the matrix that formulated by Schmeer (1999) with little simplification. Furthermore, the additional indexes in final level of importance and influence of stakeholders adapted from The World Bank (1998) are added to the matrix. The results shown in the matrix below: Table 2. Stakeholder Analysis Matrix Importance of Stakeholder for Success of Project No
Actors' Name
Position & Organization
Interests
Internal/ External
Interests Knowled Posi ge tion
1
Drs. Dadang Iradi, M.Pd. (Government official 1)
Regional Secretary of Funeral & Parks Department
2
Ir. Dadang Darmawan, M.Si.
Head of Parks Division
Degree of Influence of Stakeholder over Project Resources
Power
Leader
Ability Resour Advant./ Quantit to ces Yes/No Disadvan y Mobiliz Averag t. e e
Level of Importance and Influence
Represen t Head of FPD, leading secretaria t aspects of FPD
Internal
2
Sup Advantage port s
2
3
2
Yes
Importance: 3 Influence: 3
Leading sector of parks in
Internal
3
Sup port
2
3
2
Yes
Importance: 5 Influence: 4
Advantag es
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
471
(Government official 2)
Bandung City
3
Rikke Siti Fatimah, S.P. (Government official 3)
Coordina ting & recording data of parks’ arrangem ent & constructi on
Internal
3
Sup port
Advantag es
2
2
2
Yes
Importance: 4 Influence: 3
4
Coordina ting General Function R. M. Taufiq mechanis - Regional Hidayat, S.Sos., m of Secretary of M.T. private Bandung City, (Government fund Economic official 4) rising Planning Div. (CSR and grants)
Internal
2
Sup port
Advantag es
2
2
2
No
Importance: 4 Influence: 3
5
Lecturer of Landscape Architecture in ITB and Architect
Coordina ting Governm entAcademi c projects cooperati on in an upcomin gplanned of Thematic Park
External
2
Modera Advantag te es Support
1
1
1
No
Importance: 3 Influence: 2
Lecturer of Landscape Architecture in ITB and Architect
Contribut ing on grant of upcomin g Bandung City Park's design
External
2
Modera Advantag te es Support
1
1
1
No
Importance: 3 Influence: 2
7
Dian Heri Sofian, IAI, IALI. (Expertise, Grant Donor of Design 1)
Lecturer, Chief of IALI (Association of Indonesia Landscape Architecture)
Contribut ing on grant of upcomin g Bandung City Park's design
External
2
Modera Advantag te es Support
2
3
2
Yes
Importance: 4 Influence: 3
8
Sigit Wisnuadji, ST., M.Sc. (Expertise,
Architect
Contribut ing on grant of Vanda
External
2
2
2
2
No
Importance: 4 Influence: 3
6
Ir. Budi Faisal, MLA, MAUD, Ph.D. (Expertise 1)
Agus R. Soeriaatmadja , ST., MLA. (Expertise 2)
Head of Parks' Arrangement and Construction Sub-Division
Sup port
Advantag es
472
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
Grant Donor of Design 2)
Park's design
9
Daliana Suryawinata (Expertise, Grant Donor of Design 3)
Co-founder and Director of SHAU Architecture and Urbanism Consultant
Contribut ing on grant of Film Park's design
External
2
Sup port
Advantag es
2
2
2
No
Importance: 4 Influence: 3
10
Ir. Atmaji Widiyuswant o (Grant Donor of Goods and Construction)
QS. CA & Purchasing Manager PT. Mahkota Permata Perdana
Contribut ing on funding grant of Vanda Park
External
1
Sup port
Advantag es
2
2
2
No
Importance: 4 Influence: 3
11
Novi Cahyono, S.E. (Grant Donor of Goods)
Secretariat of BMPD (Group of Regional Banking Deliberation) West Java
Contribut ing on funding grant of Vanda Park
External
1
Modera Advantag te es Support
2
2
2
No
Importance: 3 Influence: 3
General Secretary of Bandung Creative City Forum (BCCF)
Hired by Bandung City Governm ent to design the Music Park
External
2
Advantag es
2
2
2
No
Importance: 3 Influence: 2
Lecturer of Landscape Architecture in UNPAS, and Landscape Architect
Hired by Bandung City Governm ent to conceptu alize the Thematic Park's justificati on study
External
2
Modera Advantag te es Support
1
1
1
No
Importance: 3 Influence: 2
12
13
Dr. Dwinita Larasati, MA. (Hired Design Consultant)
Ir. Achmad Firmansam, MIL. (Hired Conceiver)
Sup port
Source: Analysis Result
Explanations: The World Bank (1998) - Interests: the priority concerns of the stakeholder group (or what is “at stake” for them); -Importance: the degree to which the achievement of project objectives depends on the active involvement of a given stakeholder group (U=Unknown; 1=Little/No Importance; 2=Some Importance; 3=Moderate Importance; 4=Very Importance; 5=Critical Player) - Influence: the degree to which the stakeholder group has power and control over the project and can thus facilitate or hinder its implementation (U=Unknown; 1=Little/No Influence; 2=Some Influence; 3=Moderate Influence; 4=Significant Influence; 5=Very Influential) Schmeer (1999) - Internal stakeholders work within the organization that is promoting or implementing the policy; all other stakeholders are considered external
473
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
Level of knowledge regarding the policy under analysis; 3 = a lot; 2 = some; 1 = none Position: Support; those who agree with the implementation of the policy, Moderate Supporters; express some agreement, Opponent; disagree, Moderate-Opponents; express some opposition, Neutral; do not have a clear opinion or their opinion could not be discerned - Resources: “a source of support or aid” (Webster, 1984). Resources can be of many types—human, financial, technological, political, and other. The quantity of resources: 3=many; 2=some; 1=few - The ability of the stakeholder to mobilize resources: 3=can make decisions regarding the use of the resources in his/her organization/area; 2=stakeholder is one of several persons that makes decisions; 1=cannot make decisions - Power is the ability to affect the policy implementation due to the strength or force he/she possesses. Resources average of power is combined measure of quantity and ability to mobilize, resulting index; 3=high; 2=medium; 1=little - Leadership is willingness and ability to initiate, convoke, or lead an action for or against the policy. The stakeholder either has or lacks this characteristic, represented with “yes” or “no" Furthermore, the matrix of stakeholder analysis was transfer into the Mapping Key Stakeholders. Level of the importance and influence of stakeholders in the last previous column, are divided into their classification. The mapping can help to analyze the results more systematic. The mapping matrix can be seen in the table below: -
Table 3. Mapping Key Stakeholders’ Relative Influence and Importance Degree of Influence of Stakeholder over Project Unknown Little/No Influence
Importance of Stakeholder for Success of Project Unknown
Little/No Importance
Some Importance
Moderate Importance
Much Importance
Critical Player
1. Expertise 1 2. Expertise 2 Some Influence
3. Hired Design Consultant 4. Hired Conceiver 1. Government Official 3 2. Government Official 4 3. Expertise and Grant Donor of Design 1 1. Government Official 1
Moderate Influence
2. Grant Donor of Goods
4. Expertise and Grant Donor of Design 2 5. Expertise and Grant Donor of Design 3 6. Grant Donor of Goods & Construction
Significant Influence Very Influential
1. Government Official 2 1. Bandung City Mayor
The World Bank (1998) defined the results of mapping key stakeholders into four types based on the degree (low and high) of the influence and the importance of stakeholders. Related to the result of table 3, it can be divided into stakeholders of high influence and high importance and stakeholder of low influence and high importance. The stakeholders of high influence and high importance (in the gray one) should be closely involved throughout to
474
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
ensure their support for the project, whereas stakeholders of low influence and high importance require special efforts to ensure that their needs are met and their participation is meaningful. In general, the result shows that the stakeholders involved have high importance and high influence in the project. The non-government actors especially, need to be assisted and accommodated well to keep their participation and active roles. Each of stakeholders needs to understand their critical roles, their rights and obligations, and their opinions for better process or outcomes should be followed up. The building trust and shared-vision for the better public service should be pursued together, whether each stakeholder’s objectives could be different. In this context, the Bandung City Mayor as the key actor needs to ensure those aspects to other stakeholders, in order to keep the desirable-values going. 3.5. Collaboration Scheme The previous examinations of this study try to derive theoretical and empirical framework on collaborative approach in the Thematic Park case. The results then analyzed, compared, and combined with the previous researches. The authors influenced by Collaborative Governance Model from Ansell and Gash (2007), Network Power Model from Booher and Innes (2002), and Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) from Thomas and Kilmann (1974). Those models have built the collaborative management strategy as a tool to make valuable outcomes of projects or policies after reviewing hundreds different cases. Nevertheless, those models are not elaborated in practical approach about how exactly collaborative approach involved in the projects systems. Our goal is to build the collaborative scheme of government projects in providing public goods, so this system can be adopted and evaluated. The involvement of diverse stakeholders in collaborative action of government projects and how those are managed and organized by government officials can be seen in the diagram below:
Fig. 3. Collaboration Scheme of Government Projects in Providing Public Goods Source: Analysis Result
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476
475
This collaborative scheme need to be made as a policy system in order to ensure the system can be ‘implemented’ and runs more sustainable. In Indonesia, this policy system can be built in the context of Peraturan Daerah or Regional Regulation. However, the government should be careful with certain political motive from some actors. The success of this scheme much influenced by the diversity of stakeholders, duration of the process, and degree of participation. The better results need longer time and more variety actor’s engagement. The uncertainty inherent in this complex system moreover, meant that even powerful actors and knowledgeable experts could not make predictions on which effective policy could be based (Innes and Booher, 2010). Ernest Alexander (2003) in Allmendinger (2002) also rejected the possibility of a ‘general theory’ of planning, the different kinds of planners in different context should (and do) enact different models or theories of planning. The model of collaborative scheme might be appropriate in some context of government projects, but might be inappropriate in other contexts, it is considered by the similar complexity of the projects. 4. Conclusions Governance process are not recipes, they are unique constructions in specific situations (Healey, 1997). Systems are dynamic, they are adapt, shift, and evolve (Allmendinger, 2002). Those systems can be theorized, modelled, and predicted, as long as the combination of its constraints and rational behavior taken into account, and the planning should anticipate its dynamic changing. This paper intended to make the best practice of collaborative approach in Bandung City Thematic Parks taken into the policy system of collaboration scheme, so this action could be continued and more sustainable. Nevertheless, it is a casuistic phenomenon which this research only focused on. The further comprehensive study, more evaluation and comparison to others practice are needed in order to make the better model. Acknowledgements This paper is part of an on-going thesis project entitled “Analisis Tipologi Bentuk Kolaborasi Stakeholders yang Terlibat dalam Pengadaan dan Pengelolaan Taman Tematik Kota Bandung”. The authors would like to thank especially for the respondents who are willing to be interviewed and really cooperative to bring the information, so this research possible to have done.
References Allmendinger, P. (2002). Planning Theory. Hampshire: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (JPART), 543-571. Bandung, BAPPEDA Kota, & Interplan, PT. Belaputra. (2014). Laporan Akhir Kajian Konsep Pengembangan dan Pengelolaan Taman Kota Menjadi Taman Tematik di Kota Bandung. Bandung: BAPPEDA Kota Bandung. Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2002). Network Power in Collaborative Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 221-236. ______________________. (2010). Planning With Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. New York: Routledge. Fuad, A., & Nugroho, K. S. (2014). Panduan Praktis Penelitian Kualitatif. Yogyakarta: GRAHA ILMU. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning:Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN. _______. (2003). Collaborative Planning in Perspective. SAGE Publications, 2 (2), 101-123. Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (1997). Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing The Commons. Cambridge: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. ________. (1998). Common-Pool Resources and Institutions: Toward a Revised Theory. In P. Newman (Ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and The Law (Vol. 3, pp. 1316-1336). London: Macmillan Press. Peraturan Daerah Kota Bandung Nomor 9 Tahun 2005. Penerimaan Sumbangan Pihak Ketiga Kepada Pemerintah Kota Bandung. 21 Oktober 2005. Lembaran Daerah Kota Bandung Tahun 2005 Nomor 09. Bandung. Peraturan Daerah Kota Bandung Nomor 13 Tahun 2012. Pelaksanaan Kewajiban Tanggung Jawab Sosial dan Lingkungan Perusahaan. 23 Juli 2012. Lembaran Daerah Kota Bandung Tahun 2012 Nomor 13. Bandung. Ricketts, K. G. (2009, August). Power Basics. Retrieved March 28, 2015, from UK Ag: Learning, Discovery, Service: http://www2.ca.uky.edu/ agc/pubs/elk2/elk2103/elk2103.pdf Schmeer, K. (1999, November). Guidelines for Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis. Health Reform Tools Series.
476
Zainab Nururrohmah and Suhirman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227 (2016) 465 – 476 Social Science Team of USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2005, May). Understanding Community Power Structure. People, Partnership, and Communities(21), pp. 1-8. The World Bank. (1998, April). Participation and Social Assessment: Tools and Techniques. Washington D.C., United States of America: The World Bank. Thomas, K. W. (2012). Making Conflict Management a Strategic Advantage. White Paper.